The Effects of the Inclusion of a Bobath Based Approach in the Rehabilitative Treatment of Patients Post Stroke Resulting in Hemiparesis

Why the hell are we still writing about NDT/Bobath? It has been proven multiple times to not be effective.

Comparison Of Two Physiotherapy Approaches InAcute Stroke Rehabilitation: Motor RelearningProgram Versus Bobath Approach.

Motor Relearning Program vs. Bobath:
http://cre.sagepub.com/content/14/4/361.short

And here is Peter Levines take on NDT:
http://recoverfromstroke.blogspot.com/2013/01/neuro-developmental-treatment.html

The Effects of the Inclusion of a Bobath Based Approach in the Rehabilitative Treatment of Patients Post Stroke Resulting in Hemiparesis
Overall Clinical Bottom Line: Based on the results of this critically appraised topic,
there is moderate evidence to suggest that for patients post CVA resulting in
hemiparesis an intervention based on the Bobath approach provides similar outcomes
in function to other treatment approaches. In all four articles, subjects that received
Bobath based treatment initiated in an acute care setting demonstrated statistically
significant increases in function. However, the increases in function were either not
statistically different than the improvements noted in comparison groups or Bobath
group effect sizes were slightly lower than comparison groups. In Gelber et al., there
was no difference found between the Bobath approach and the Traditional Functional
Retraining group in regards to gait speed or the Functional Independence Measure.
Wang et al. found the Bobath group improvement on the Berg Balance Scale was no
different than subjects who received an orthopedic approach. Subjects in the Bobath
group did have a greater improvement on the MAS, but the fair internal validity of this
study slightly limited its usefulness. Van Vliet et al. had good internal validity and
provided moderate evidence that the Bobath approach was similar to a Movement
Science Based approach because there was no difference between group improvement
on the Rivermead Motor Scale, Motor Assessment Scale, or gait speed. Lastly,
Langhammer et al provided moderate evidence that the Bobath approach was slightly
less favorable when compared to a Motor Relearning Program (MRP) on the Sodring
Motor Evaluation Scale and Motor Assessment Scale. Between group analysis
revealed a small effect size favoring the MRP group, but the lower end of the
confidence interval crossed zero indicating that in future trials the Bobath approach
could have been more effective. The MRP group did have a statistically significant
shorter length of hospital stay. Therefore, the inclusion of a Bobath approach did not
provide any additional increases in patient function than comparison treatments did.
As mentioned previously, the Bobath approach now includes task specific practice with
a focus on normalizing tone and movement sequence. It is important to note that the
four articles examined in this review focused on an earlier interpretation of the approach
where task specific training is not included. Therefore, future research on the subject is
required to ascertain as to how beneficial the Bobath approach is in combination with
task specific practice.